Toronto East York, Canada

Seniors and Looming Housing Crisis

Despite the ominous forecasts and dire warnings about the increasing seniors population and the burden that will place on social services we don’t hear much about practical solutions to deal with this challenge. Given the fact life expectancy has been steadily increasing, we have to accept there is a crisis looming that will impact not only pensions, health and long-term care but also other essential social needs such as subsidized seniors’ housing.

The number of seniors in Canada is projected to increase from 4.2 million to 9.8 million between 2005 and 2036, and seniors’ share of the population is expected to almost double, increasing from 13.2% to 24.5%”.

We should also consider that the majority of seniors are women. Women, as we know, generally still earn considerably less than men, and this income inequality will also have an impact on their lifestyle choices in later years.

While health care costs for seniors dominate much of the discussion we don’t seem to hear very much about the need for ‘rent-geared-to-income’ housing solutions for seniors. It should be apparent to all levels of government that affordable housing for seniors should be given a much higher priority than is currently the case, especially when you look at the long waiting lists for social housing. The uncertain state of the economy and the possibility of us remaining in a contracting economy for some time to come will increase the challenge of providing adequate services for our aging population. Despite the state of the economy we have to find creative ways to give some priority to affordable, sustainable and dignified housing for our growing seniors population. One of our earlier posts Tenants should ask for a bailout too suggested ‘granny flats’ as an option to tackle the issue.

A significant number of the seniors’ population are not homeowners and they will have to rely on ‘rent-geared-to-income’ rental accommodation. You can rest assured that these seniors have nothing remotely in common with the smiling and happy seniors who are usually portrayed in glossy ads that convey affluence. That is not the reality for a large number of retirees who will have to survive on modest incomes that barely meet their daily needs. While some cultural communities provide housing solutions for their seniors, a large segment of the seniors population have to rely on government subsidized housing or ‘rent-geared-to-income’ rental accommodation.

The waiting list for social housing for all age groups is formidable. In the GTA it is well known that, due to the long waiting list for ‘rent-geared-to-income’ housing for seniors, priority for subsidized seniors’ housing is given either to those seniors with serious health issues or those in dire financial circumstances. The administration of these subsidized buildings appear to have serious shortcomings based on reports in the media. So the harsh reality is that many seniors will be forced to find part-time employment to supplement their income to cover housing costs in a market value building. The fortunate ones who are able to find part-time work will be in a minority as some seniors will not have this option. Most seniors will have to depend on subsidized ‘rent-geared-to-income’ housing and contend with long waiting lists.

It is apparent that government initiatives to construct new ‘rent-geared-to-income’ housing for seniors are not on the agenda. Consideration must be given to workable options to reduce waiting lists and alleviate this looming housing crisis. Question:Do all seniors want to live in an environment made up of only senior citizens? Perhaps the time has come to push for a more inclusive model of ‘mixed-use housing’ to cope with the increased demand for ‘rent-geared-to-income’ housing for seniors. This model would promote ‘mixed-use housing’ within market value buildings where renters of all ages reside. It is time to stop warehousing our seniors and instead allow them to live with dignity in our midst.

We can for example spread the subsidy by:

Allowing independent seniors with modest incomes who are existing tenants in market value buildings to remain in their current ‘mixed-use’ building by offering a similar subsidy to what they would receive in a seniors’ residence.

Encouraging landlords/property owners of market value buildings with incentives to set aside a certain number of ‘rent-geared-to-income’ units for independent low-income seniors in order to reduce the huge waiting list for subsidized seniors housing.

Consideration should also be given to establishing a committee well represented by seniors to address affordable accommodation needs for the elderly as they should have a say in how they want to live out their golden years.

We need to ask our politicians why there isn’t a model in place to encourage landlords/property owners of ‘market value’ buildings to allocate some units as ‘rent-geared-to income’ for low-income seniors who are either existing tenants or are on the social housing waiting list. Politicians should look more carefully at this issue since the expanding population of senior citizens is quietly becoming a very significant voting block. We need to ensure our low-income seniors will have a reasonable standard of living in their golden years. They should not be paying more than 33% of their income on rent. Politicians need to give more consideration to our seniors. They have, after all, contributed to the growth and success of this great nation for most of their working lives.

Feel free to join the discussion on the looming housing challenges faced by seniors. Let us know what you think.

18 Responses

One of my best friends and her husband will both retire this year. Presently, they are facing a very painful and precarious situation. They will be forced to move out from their apartment due to the high rent. They don’t want to leave this apartment, but since their monthly pension will not be sufficient they do not have a choice. It is a dilemma. On the one hand, they cannot even get into subsidized senior housing due to the long waiting list and, on the other hand, they are faced with unaffordable housing costs. The government statistics for the growing seniors population is disturbing and should not be ignored. I believe thousands of seniors across Canada are going through the same financial situation as my friends — ready to retire but not being able to afford rent.

This capitalist society seems not to value the contributions that senior citizens made over the decades and are ignoring the fact that there is huge need for pension reform. In the absence of pension reforms and a sensible solution to affordable housing for seniors, the Provincial Government should spread the housing subsidy so that seniors can remain in ‘market-value’ buildings, hence helping seniors ease their financial and emotional situation. It should be top priority for governments to take the lead and solve this huge problem that so many unfortunate seniors have to face. As part of the overall plan to assist low-income seniors struggling with high rents provincial governments should establish a committee which advocates for the seniors’ well being. After all, seniors have contributed so much to Canada during their working lives and I believe it is their basic right to live out their last years with minimal financial stress.

I still have a few years before retiring, and I do hope when that time comes the Provincial Government will have resolved this seniors-housing scary situation. It would be too painful and terrifying not having enough income to pay rent or, heaven forbid, buy food. Seniors with inadequate incomes should pay very close attention to which political party is sensitive to their housing needs and vote accordingly at election time.

I’ve read all the comments with a great deal of interest. It strikes me that they all share a common thread: Lack of Vision. To build a truly great society we must have visons and be open to new ideas – no less so when it comes to Seniors’ housing and Social Policies in general. Just what kind of a society do we want to live in, especially if frail and vulnerable?

I think it is time we place a much greater demand on our elected officials to produce real visionary plans for our future. I think the time has come for said politicians to seriously look at replacing the current model with a much more progressive – and people friendly – model for how our seniors can live out their “golden years” with dignity and still be a contributing part of society, rather than being ‘warehoused’ and isolated in designated (read segregated) “Senior Citizen homes”. How many of us like to be labelled and segregated? I know I don’t, and I rather doubt most of our seniors do!

Perhaps it’s time we start a “Golden Wave” movement for seniors rights!!!

I have a friend who worked for 33 years in one of the top department stores in Montreal that eventually went bankrupt. Her monthly pension was drastically reduced to about $150.00 per month. She wanted to continue living in her apartment but was forced to move into less desirable accommodation due to the financial hardship that was no fault of hers. Company pensions should have better guarantees as this seems to be happening far too often and pensioners can’t do anything about this.

As we all know, there are very long waiting lists for subsidized housing. I agree that to ease this problem Provincial Governments could spread this subsidy to seniors who are currently residing in ‘market value’ buildings. Of course, the subsidy would be based on rent-geared-to-income. I also strongly believe that low-income seniors should continue to live in their ‘market value’ buildings and not deal with the trauma of moving at this late stage of life. It would be more beneficial to give a subsidy to seniors as they would benefit both socially and financially.

I firmly believe that affordable housing for seniors should be top priority as the high cost of living is escalating. I also know of many low income seniors who are currently living in ‘market value’ buildings and would like to continue living there. They should have a choice and not be forced to live in subsidized buildings if they do not want to.

It is an excellent suggestion that Provincial governments set up a committee represented by seniors to address affordable accomodation. Letters could also be sent to Members of Parliament to look into this situation as so many seniors are seeking affordable housing as they struggle to survive on their meagre income. Seniors are a very engaged group and, as you stated, politicians should not ignore the housing needs of this growing segment of the population as they will become a very significant voting block.

I have senior parents who have been hard working all their lives. Neither one of them ever took any unemployment benefits even though they paid into it for 35 year and more each.

My mother worked as a sales lady at Eaton’s for 35 years. Her pension in 2009 is 130$ month. My father is alive and collects a pension but what will happen when he is no longer with us? There was a time when he had a stroke and we were thinking of placing him in home and things did not look too good for my mother. At the moment my father is still living with my mother so the situation in not so dire. If my mother had to put my father in a home she would not be able to afford the rent at the apartment they are living at by her self. She would have to move to a much smaller apartment. My parents would benefit from subsidized rent.

All parts of the government must get together and address the problem for seniors very soon.

We must do something that will allow this proud hard working generation to live their last years stress free in a country that shows respect for them.

I would like to help in a concrete way so if there is something I could do to help please advise me.

I am concerned that the only choice I have as a retiree on a fixed income would be to move to a ‘seniors subsidized building’ even though I would be paying a lot less in rent. Sure, I would have more money at my disposal at the end of the month but the thought of moving to what is frequently referred to as ‘cages for senior citizens’ troubles me. I am a retired single senior with no health issues and am concerned that I will have no choice but to live in one of those places due to my limited income. This ‘mixed-use’ or ‘multi-purpose’ option is the kind of practical and realistic approach needed to deal with the growing seniors population. Many other retirees I know who are healthy and independent would be open to remaining in a ‘market value building’. Why should independent seniors be relegated to seniors’ building if they don’t want to? How many of you have visited those seniors buildings? Many of these facilities are just a step above a long term care facility and as some viewers rightly stated… they are so depressing! The fact of the matter is that many seniors have to move to seniors apartments because they need that rent subsidy from the government to survive. Why doesn’t the province have a plan in place to spread rent subsidies to healthy independent low-income seniors who currently live in ‘market value buildings’ instead of forcing us into ‘subsidized seniors buildings’? We have worked very hard throughout our lives and now have to worry about going to food banks to survive on a daily basis. The provincial government needs to look into this and create a system where a certain number of units in a market value building are allocated to low-income seniors. Then seniors will have a choice as to whether they want to live in market value buildings or subsidized seniors residences. Landlords definitely won’t like this option because they will lose those huge ‘financial benefits’ they gain from Vacancy Decontrol.

As you pointed out that long waiting list for subsidized seniors residences will continue to grow as the seniors population keeps growing. So the ‘mixed use’ housing to include seniors and spreading of subsidies should be given serious consideration by all levels of government. Young people out there had better pay close attention to what is happening. Company pensions are no longer guaranteed. Make sure you start saving for retirement with your very first paycheque… take note that even $10 saved each and every week for 40 years will go a long way to ensure you have a worry-free retirement.

The options for ‘mixed use housing’ you identified are definitely workable …. only if the political will is there! However, what comes to mind immediately is the issue of ‘vacancy decontrol’ with regard to seniors who are ‘sitting tenants’. I suspect that many politicians are in the pockets of the landlord lobbyists so when it comes to ‘vacancy decontrol’ perhaps not much consideration will be given to that particular option. Vacancy decontrol, is, plain and simple, a ‘money grab’ by landlords that is allowed under the Residential Tenancies Act. Vacancy Decontrol allows Landlords to charge ‘whatever the market will bear’ on empty units. However, Landlords might be more receptive to the other option to rent to low-income seniors from that ridiculously long social housing waiting list as landlords can realize great financial benefits from ‘vacancy decontrol.

As for that option for seniors who are ‘sitting tenants’, it will work if the tenant deals directly with whatever government agency is assigned the task of approving the subsidy and the landlord is left entirely out of the loop. If the Ontario government has the will to approve a regulation or law for a subsidy that allows low-income seniors to remain in a ‘market value’ building then that will go a long way in managing the expected housing crisis for seniors. And, the best part is, independent, healthy seniors will have a choice of remaining in a ‘mixed use’ environment as opposed to being forced to live in tiny units in depressing subsidized buildings that isolates seniors. We much also not forget that the vacancy rate is slowly rising and that means there will be an increased supply of vacant units…. units that can be used to house low-income seniors on that waiting list.

Personally I have some concerns about affordable housing as my retirement is not too far away. I hope the options proposed are given due consideration by the Ontario govt. As another viewer mentioned . . . not that much paperwork (and bureaucracy) will be required! Let’s go for it.

The philosophy of our capitalist society is that seniors are useless and should be cast aside all together away from the younger working population. The very expensive living complexes reserved for retirees are in line with this philosophy and many seniors unfortunately buy into it. No matter how luxurious these housing complexes are, they are depressing. Integration in the main stream, may it be expensive or subsidized, is the key to dealing with seniors.

As for Al’s comment of how seniors now or later reap the results of poor financial planning is irrelevant. Someone in need of essentials today cannot return to the past to mend their ways in order to solve today’s problems. I have been made aware of an octogenarian biochemist who presently works in a travel agency in Montreal in order to make ends meet. At first her company pension was sufficient, but as years went by, her buying power was progressively reduced to gross inadequacy. A society which forces its elders back to work through necessity to survive is retrograde in the extreme. What of single mothers who devoted all of their financial ressources to educate their children paying tuition, sport fees, etc for them with minimal or no help from fathers. Would Al still blame them for their lack of financial planning for retirement years?

I have thought of a few suggestions to help seniors overall

1. Seniors all over Canada should join forces in an association to be informed of their rights and then to defend and claim them and also to instigate political and societal changes as a group.

2. In all attempts to improve the everyday life of seniors, all three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, should be involved.

3. The existing revenues of seniors should be protected

a) Indexations of pensions should be realistic, keeping up with the increasing cost of living.

b) The basic tax exempt revenue should be raised for seniors over 65.

c) Work-related pensions should not be lowered when one becomes eligible for old-age pension.

d) Medication should be free for individuals over 65 as it was 25 years ago in Quebec.

To come back to the specific subject of this blog, yes, integrated housing should be subsidized for seniors in need and best of all, every effort should be extended to keep seniors in their familiar surroundings. Moving should be avoided as much as possible.

To me, housing is just the tip of the iceberg when I hear of seniors eating canned dog food in order to pay for their medications.

I believe that if the numbers of functioning seniors that will need housing is increasing so much, and the calculations stated above are accurate, then something really must be done. I like the idea of Granny flats, but I think that only addresses a smaller portion of that number. But if advertised, and promoted, and at least partially subsidized, that portion could increase. I also think that the mixed-use affordable housing is a must. Seniors and income challenged people alike, of all ages, need that help. It would also let seniors pass on their knowlede to these younger folks, and allow the younger folk to help their older neighbour, and therfore create a healthy, positve way of life. Instead of being pushed out of the way, in effect, cloistered, the functioning seniors could benefit from mixed-use affordable housing by living out the rest of their lives in a real community.

I totally agree with all comments and CM made some excellent points. The problem pertaining to affordable housing for seniors has been pushed to the back burner for far too long. The aging population has already altered demographics and impacted various social services. With vacancy rates on the rise in market value buildings, together with the deplorable lack of affordable senior housing, should be a wake-up call to the powers that be to take definitive action. Designating a certain number of units in market value buildings for subsidized senior housing is a reasonable and sensible solution. Whatever happened to common sense … has it taken a holiday? Due to the extensive long waiting lists for senior housing in the GTA, I relocated to a seniors’ building out of the GTA. Speaking from experience, I would not have relocated to this building if the option of a designated subsidized unit for seniors in a mixed use building had been made available to me. I would have been very happy to remain in the building I’d lived in for over 25 years. And I can attest to the fact that relocating was very traumatic and being so far away from everything familiar, including friends, is very isolating. Given the fact that there is a severe lack of “good well-operated subsidized seniors’ buildings” and, as waiting lists are extensive, you may not always have the option of choice whether it’s a specific building or area. It’s time for the politicians to get their act together and cooperate on resolving the housing problems facing the senior population instead of applying “band-aid” solutions. As we all know, this only wastes money and solves nothing. I will keep this in mind when I vote in the next election.

I absolutely agree that more attention should be paid to the changing demographics and social needs of the expanding seniors population. Those options identified are a sensible way to manage the long waiting lists for seniors subsidized housing and will also provide a level of dignity and comfort to independent, active low-income seniors who need subsidized housing. I like the interpretation of ‘mixed-use housing’ in this instance where people of all ages can reside in the same building and that seniors can choose not to live in what I see as isolation (or perhaps segregation). These options have added benefits since seniors can remain in a familiar environment and, in the case of sitting tenants, landlords will be familiar with their tenant history. Sometimes dramatic changes in the lives of seniors can result in unintended emotional and other health problems. This option for older sitting tenants should also provide stability at this time of their life.

It should also be noted that with the rising vacancy rate landlords can be assured of income so hopefully landlords will come on board. Implementing a system that allocates a small number of rent-geared-to-income units in a ‘market value’ building for low-income seniors should not be too much of a challenge. These are workable options and should be given serious consideration by government so as to better manage the increasing demand for subsidized seniors housing.

I am so pleased you are addressing this issue of seniors and affordable housing. That awful tragedy of the senior who was locked out of his unit by TCHC and died in a shelter greatly saddened me. Why wasn’t there a process in place to assist ‘at risk’ seniors with required documentation to confirm income status in a timely manner? That documentation only has to be submitted once a year! I also have concerns about nursing homes and the media reports where many seniors are treated poorly while having to hand over their total pension income to these organizations. These homes know just how much seniors are receiving and take all of it.

The recommendation that a committee that includes seniors should be established to address their accommodation needs is excellent. I am trying hard not to advocate for more regulation, but seniors are a very vulnerable group. Some illnesses take away seniors ability to think clearly. A lot of seniors I know are independent, smart and will know what is best for themselves. Many seniors have already worked very hard to put something away for the golden years and hope that it will be sufficient. The next generation are such misfits I am worried about them making decisions for us in respect of where we live and if we apply for or get subsidy, or worst yet if they would swindle us of our money and, heaven forbid, leave us to live in a tent!!!

I totally agree with a lot of the comments made.
Following up on Penny’s comment, I wonder if establishing an agency to oversee and protect seniors is perhaps at least part of the solution.
I am thinking that seniors are a very vulnerable group, regardless of whether they live at home or in a senior’s residence.
They are dependent on their “care givers”, be it nursing/senior home staff or home care – even if this is privately paid for care!
I don’t know what’s out there already in terms of senior protection, but given some of the stories in the news, I am led to believe it is far from enough.
Seniors, too, deserve to be treated well and with respect!

Great article! And you’ve raised some really good points for all, politicians included, to ponder.

I believe the time has come for us as a society to re-think the current subsidised housing model. It seems to me that we’re stuck in a rather Victorian, authoritative, “government-knows-best” mode.

I know of seniors who have had to vacate their homes or apartments, all because of accommodation costs or an increase in basic healthcare needs. With a bit of financial help, i.e. housing subsidy, and basic home care (community nurse visits, cleaning assistance, etc.), these seniors could have continued to live with dignity in their original homes. Instead, they had to go on waiting lists for senior homes or government sanctioned subsidised housing. Moving can be traumatic for many of us. No less so for seniors who in many cases have lived in their neighbourhoods for years – in comforting and familiar surroundings.

I cannot help but wonder if a cost-benefit analysis wouldn’t reveal that, as a society, we are much better off financially to support our seniors in their own homes for as long as possible, rather than force them to queue up for ‘institutional’ accommodation? Aside from any potential financial benefit, this approach would most certainly afford our seniors much more dignity and pride. Most of us prefer to live as independently as possible for as long as possible.

So, my thinking is that more Granny Flats and a program to “spread the subsidy” to help seniors currently living in private for-profit housing who qualify for a housing subsidy, would be the way of the future. This enlightened approach, in my view, would help reduce waiting lists and allow many more to live independently and with dignity much longer than is the case when ‘warehoused’ in (often) very expensive seniors residences. Residences that, by the way, often are ‘for-profit’ ventures!

Get the point? We are currently ‘subsidising’ seniors in government designated for-profit accommodations called Seniors Residences. I am simply asking, why we don’t spread that subsidy to other for-profit residences to allow seniors to remain in their current homes?

The high cost of housing has made it impossible for most single people (old or young) to own a house. Many are not in a position to save for retirement, so when they retire, they have nothing else on which to survive but the CPP and OAS. These are the people who are life long tenants.

How often do you hear people say, I can’t afford to retire”? While working, they may be able to pay the rent, but when on a small fixed income, the situation changes.

Seniors need affordable housing. It is a huge social problem which needs to be addressed before it snowballs.

Comment from PamG pretty much hits any thoughts i have about this situation. since it is today’s seniors who helped give us the prosperity we have, we need to think about them now & show that we appreciate them.

Life is not fair! Ordinary people will become poorer and the rich will be so much richer. Definitely agree that a subsidy in ‘market value’ buildings is a workable option. We also need to talk about how seniors should manage their finances better. Some people were incapable of managing their money when they were young and those bad habits have stayed with them all their lives irrespective of how much money they made along the way. They never learned the basics of how to save small amounts of money on a consistent basis. They believed the CPP and OAS would be adequate and always there to meet their needs. The consequence is that they have to struggle to survive in their senior years. There will be no ‘free ride’ for ordinary citizens and more seniors will have to assume a greater responsibility for the own welfare in the future. By the way, this so-called economic recovery is nothing but a mirage and the recession will continue for a long time. Those young ones coming up should pay serious attention to this and do proper financial planning as there might not be a CPP safety net for them in their old age. The capitalist financial system has too many boom and bust cycles…..or to describe it more accurately, it is a highly complicated system of camouflaged thievery and fraud.

The emphasis on ‘mixed use’ housing should be a priority among politicians when talking about housing needs for seniors PERIOD!

Many independent and healthy seniors are quite content to remain in their market value rental accommodation but unfortunately are unable to do so due to their reduced income when they retire. Just how much additional paper work would be required to process rent subsidies for seniors in ‘market value’ buildings?

What about the vacancy rate…. isn’t the vacancy rate for apartment units fairly high? Quite a few units in my building are empty. By the way, monthly rental costs should be a lot less than 33%!!!!